From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 7426D3858CDA; Sun,  5 Mar 2023 00:36:44 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7426D3858CDA
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1677976604;
	bh=nrhctRDL8tkabN3Ux/XPOsHqx69zR/km/MdiwSv0wYI=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=hc+dVXDS6CtEPe4TkrOq4rp428CBDL+YvVNlkOAC1oiJN4WOInuY1bQZbFAISziey
	 vl1ua9w4Bmu4FppDLXoDqok4kwkii4EubZWlHrAUZ9PmDTXwDzXJsgsaONKiFkmsNN
	 h8ID6Or7T32Fi9CNiUPEmxrHbnXonmriKdmHPXWI=
From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/109025] [13 Regression] ice in
 nested_in_vect_loop_p
Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2023 00:36:43 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: tree-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-109025-4-FKTayrbnlR@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-109025-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-109025-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D109025

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |13.0

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed, reduced a little further and valid well defined code:
```
int func_4(int t, int b) {
  for (int tt1 =3D 0; tt1 < 1024 ; tt1 ++)
  {
    for (int tt =3D 0; tt < 1024; tt ++)
      if (b)
        t ^=3D 10;
    t ^=3D 10;
  }
  return t;
}
```=